Some of you might already have heard the news, that Amazon has purchased the rights to do a Lord of the Rings tv series. At this point, not much is known about it – shooting has yet to begin and cast and crew are yet to be announced, however it will supposedly be a 5 season long endeavour and there has been claims that it will have an extremely high budget. Rumour has it that it will not be a mere retelling of the LOTR books, but it will heavily rely on the source material provided by the books. Continue reading
One of the most common complaints about the Hobbit trilogy is the fact, that it is… a trilogy. Mainly since the book itself is only about 300 pages long, depending on your edition. Which is why many of the film’s critics have accused Peter Jackson of spreading too little material out so they could make more money. While it’s true, that The Hobbit book in itself does not have the scope or the length of The Lord of the Rings, that does not necessarily mean, that a movie version should be short just because the book was so. Especially, if one is to consider, that the two books are quite different in many ways.
So let’s take some time and look at why making the Hobbit a trilogy was justified and how Peter Jackson actually did the story a favour by giving it more space to breathe.